Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 14, 2026

A Low Cost Setup for Behavioral Audiometry in Rodents
Published on: October 16, 2012
Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures
Peter J Neumann1, Jordan E Anderson1, Ari D Panzer1
1Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) using cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) have grown significantly. Research focus varies by region and disease burden, indicating potential funding gaps for understudied conditions.
Area of Science:
- Health Economics
- Comparative Effectiveness Research
- Global Health
Background:
- Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are crucial for healthcare decision-making.
- Two prominent metrics, cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted, are commonly used.
- Understanding the similarities and differences in studies utilizing these metrics is essential.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare and contrast studies employing cost per QALY gained versus cost per DALY averted metrics.
- To analyze trends in CEA research based on intervention type, funding, geography, and disease.
- To assess the alignment between disease burden and research attention in the CEA literature.
Main Methods:
- Utilized the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry (cost-per-QALY studies) and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry (cost-per-DALY studies).
- Examined study characteristics: intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease.
- Compared publication numbers to disease burden across geographic regions.
Main Results:
- Identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016, showing rapid growth.
- Cost-per-QALY studies predominantly focused on pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries.
- Cost-per-DALY studies concentrated on infectious diseases and interventions in low/lower-middle-income countries.
- While disease burden generally correlates with study attention, some conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) appear under-studied, while others (e.g., HIV, TB) seem over-studied.
Conclusions:
- The CEA literature has expanded substantially, covering diverse interventions and diseases.
- Discrepancies between disease burden and publication frequency highlight potential funding opportunities for under-researched conditions.
- Future research should consider addressing these identified gaps in cost-effectiveness analysis.
Related Concept Videos
Gain
Gain:
Suppose Vin is the input and Vout is the output signal to a circuit.
Comparative Excretory Systems
Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs
Copy number variations or CNVs are the structural variations that cover more than 1kb of DNA sequence. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), on the other hand, is a single nucleotide change or a point mutation that is found in more than 1%...
Comparing Experimental Results: Student's t-Test
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Comparing Mitochondrial, Chloroplast, and Prokaryotic Genomes

